5.88

I have seen a consultation launched for the above project and would like to provide feedback.

I strongly support new housebuilding in Cambridge - as an Academic at the university I am likely to leave the city in the future unless house prices become affordable.

I am aware that consultations on developments are often dominated by those with objections, but I would like to raise the point that many people across the city will benefit from more house building.

After our visit to public exhibition on 17th August 2017 at St Andrews Church Cherry Hinton.

We would like to make the points below.

A. TRAFFIC - Cherry Hinton High Street/ Airport Way and Coldham's Lane are at the moment often at a standstill, with the added addition of a railway crossing that closes at least twice an hour , movement is at the moment not an easy task. The addition of another 1500 houses, even with a spine road the traffic from this development, would have to feed on to the already congested stated roads.
The added factor of a secondary school, would mean movement of at least 1500 staff and pupils every morning and evening feeding onto the already stated congested roads. The primary school would also generate a huge amount of traffic. ( We see the traffic each school day for Bewick Bridge Primary School , causing complete standstill of Fulbourn Old Drift and causing non movement from the two adjacent estates of traffic and bikes.

A.(b With large developments further afield already in the planning, that use the A14 / Airport Way to access Cambridge the impact of this alone will cease all movement in Cherry Hinton.When the A14 is congested or closed due to accidents, at the moment it becomes impossible to cross the High Street. The A14 which affects Cherry Hinton is also not due for an upgrade.

B. AIR POLLUTION - With so much stationery traffic in Cherry Hinton, in the pass few months seems even worse with cars having to wait to pass each other and complete stand still if a bus comes in to the equation, because of the extra wide cycle lanes and 20mph restrictions, with even more traffic the air pollution will increase to levels unacceptable.


C. SCHOOLS - I am amazed that you have even thought to build schools so close to an airport, aviation pollution, levels of noise, distraction . What health will the pupils be in after years in those conditions.

D. CYCLE WAYS - The cycle way across the tins to the City centre is well used at the moment, BUT dangerous, due to the very sharp bend up and over the railway line - many cyclist have come to grief at this point. Also because of the steepness many cyclist have to get of to push the bikes over - causing even more hazards, with pedestrians as well the cycle way is not safe.

E. RECENT GOVERNMENT WHITE PAPER - NEW PLANNING - "The onus should be on good design, realistic local and neighbourhood plans, and should focus on areas that can accommodate it"


F. Cherry Hinton and Teversham will both lose their identity and just become urban sprawl. The now residence of these areas have taken on board many many new homes, expanded and welcomed new comers.
but this proposed development will make life for us very difficult for the reasons stated.


e last observation - If the houses were already there - would an airport be aloud to be built so near to them- I think not. So why has some one come along with this plan?


Thank you for letting us make our remarks and I do hope that common sense prevails.

Additional Comments:
The scheme seems to have not mentioned Doctors surgery and Dentist provision, which at this moment is in Cherry Hinton at crisis point.
The vast expansion of the Addenbrooke's site will also generate much traffic through Cherry Hinton.

Each representation is prefixed with 'support', 'object' or 'comment' to clarify the status of each comment.

EDUCATION

SUPPORT: Education officers generally support the principles set out for education provision and the locations of the schools. However, there does remain a need to retain appropriate flexibility around the building location for the primary school. Both in terms of the site itself, and the surrounding area.

COMMENT: The gas main should not run under any part of the school sites, and any agreed school site will need to meet the site specification requirements set out by the County Council.

COMMENT: The 2.3 hectare primary school site is sufficient to accommodate a 2 form of entry (420 place) school, and sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed development on this site. Officers have encouraged the inclusion of additional safeguarded land to future proof the primary school site for expansion, should the adjacent land come forward for development in the future.

SUPPORT: The principle of secondary school playing fields in the green belt is acceptable to the Education Place Planning team, although it is recognised that there will need to be a balance between providing appropriate boundary treatments, and maintaining the character of the green area.

COMMENT: The local planning authority should satisfy themselves that the greenbelt tests will be met to not prejudice the deliverability of a secondary school.

COMMENT: For completeness, the map of surrounding schools, on page 18 of the SPD, appears to omit Abbey Meadows Primary School, which is within the 1600m isochrone and St Philip's Church of England Primary School, just outside of the 1600m isochrone.

COMMENT: It seems unnecessary, in paragraph 5.94, to state that the secondary school will be a minimum of 6FE to ensure it is educationally and financially viable. Simply state the secondary school will be a minimum of 6 forms of entry (900 places) to serve the SPD site and surrounding areas.

COMMENT: The primary school will include provision for early years. Officers would encourage any development of this nature to also consider provision for a commercially operated nursery. This could be ensuring the appropriate use class designation is included in any planning applications.

MINERALS AND WASTE

OBJECT: The SPD omits to include the planning policy of the adopted Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Mineral and Waste Core Strategy (2011), and the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Mineral and Waste Site Specific Proposals Plan (2012); both of which are part of the adopted development plan for the area.

COMMENT: The adopted Core Strategy seeks to make adequate provision for waste management to meet Cambridgeshire's needs over the period to 2026, and makes allocations for this purpose. The Cherry Hinton site which is the subject of this SPD forms part of a larger Area of Search for the potential location of waste management facilities allocated by Policy SSP W1E of the Site Specific Proposals Plan; and this allocation is safeguarded through Policy SSP W8H which designates a Waste Consultation Area over and around the Area of Search.

COMMENT: Policy SSP W1E allocates the Area of Search at Cambridge East for a range of waste management uses which potentially includes recycling facilities, a Household Recycling Centre, Temporary Inert Waste Recycling, Materials Recovery Facility, and suitable new waste management uses.

COMMENT: Policy CS30 of the Core Strategy provides the overarching policy for Waste Consultation Areas and this states that development will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that this will not prejudice existing or future planned waste management operations.

COMMENT: These policies will need to be included in the policy section of the SPD and addressed in due course. It should also be recognised that the wider Area of Search for the potential location of waste management facilities has been subject to development elsewhere, and has therefore been reduced in size.

FLOODS and WATER

COMMENT: Page 20, Paragraph 3.21 is incomplete ' ...onsite attenuation provided to mitigate risk to the wider catchment. Maximise and incorporate existing'.

TRANSPORT

OBJECT: Page 52 - 5.18 -The SPD should highlight that the requirements of the final spine road design will be determined by CCC and Local Authorities prior to submission of a Planning Application. The wording in the consultation version is that this will be decided through the planning application process, but the County Council require this to be decided prior to a planning application is submitted, therefore wording should be altered to prior to submission of a planning application.

COMMENT: Page 46 - Movement - the 'vehicular access points' on figure 39 are not very clear, these need to be made clearer.

COMMENT: Page 47- 5.13 should refer to Coldham's Lane/ Barnwell Road not Drive.

COMMENT: Page 51 - 5.16-The spine road design speed should be agreed with Highways
Development Control - 20mph seems most appropriate This should actually refer to Highways

Development Management or the Highway Authority or County Highways rather than Highways
Development Control.

COMMENT: Page 53- Figure 45 is small and not clear to read.

COMMENT: Page 59 -car parking provision should be compared to needs assessment e.g. car ownership levels. This has not been addressed.

PUBLIC HEALTH

The SPD has been compared to the New Housing Developments and the Built Environment Joint
Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) for Cambridgeshire1.

The JSNA contains an evidence review of the built environment's impact on health and has distilled the evidence into the following themes:
* Generic evidence supporting the built environment's impact on health.
* Green space.
* Developing sustainable communities.
* Community design (to prevent injuries, crime, and to accommodate people with disabilities).
* Connectivity and land use mix.
* Communities that support healthy ageing.
* House design and space.
* Access to unhealthy/"Fast Food".
* Health inequality and the built environment.

The SPD has therefore been reviewed against these themes to ensure the SPD has identified possible areas which can impact human health and wellbeing and therefore should be mitigated through design and master planning.

For ease of reference the comments on the SPD have been grouped under the nine themes contained in the JSNA as mentioned above.

COMMENT: A. Generic evidence supporting the built environment's impact on health. It is welcomed that the SPD recognises that "where necessary, appropriate mitigation of environmental and health impacts will be required within any proposal to ensure future residents are provided with a satisfactory living environment" (Page 2- 1.3 of the SPD). And that the SPD acknowledges both the emerging Cambridge Local Plan, and South Cambridgeshire Local Plan in that in section "2.9 Proposals for residential development will be supported if... "acceptable mitigation of environmental and health impacts (including noise) from the airport can be
provided... " In addition the 5.71 of the Open space and recreation section within the SPD states
that the development should "also encourage healthy lifestyles and the use of sustainable travel modes, such as cycling."

1 http://cambridgeshireinsight.org.uk / joint-strategic-needs-assessment/current-isna-reports/new-housinq­
developments-and-built-environment

COMMENT: B. Green space.
There are concerns that the provision of green space may not be sufficient, although the SPD references the policies within each local plan, the labels for pocket parks on the indicative map on page 63 do not match the description on the indicative map on page 43 where they are classed as green corridors, these are not the same and should be clarified.

In addition the dry swales should not be included within the allocation for green space as these may not be available for recreation depending on the condition of the swale e.g. in exceptional flood circumstances.

COMMENT: C. Developing sustainable communities.
The provision of electric charging points within the development is welcomed, however, the provision needs to be more specific and it is suggested the SPD reflects the need for EV charging points in different settings e.g. Residential, Commercial, Carparks etc. also the SPD should reflect the different types of EV charging points (standard and rapid).

It would be beneficial if the SPD had an aspiration that all dwellings are provided with EV charging points.

The acknowledgement that air quality needs to be considered at the design stage (Page 56) is welcomed and the SPD should also consider domestic use of energy as well as energy production i.e. combustion sources within domestic dwellings

The statements regarding s106 monies for 'primary health care facilities' on page 75, needs to be wider. The category of infrastructure should be 'health care facilities' rather than 'primary health care facilities' in order to allow different sectors of the NHS to decide what type of provision would best suit that location i.e. primary and community care provision. In addition the location of any expansion, or new facility may not be within Cherry Hinton so it might be better to reword the requirement to allow a flexible location.

COMMENT: D. Community design (to prevent injuries, crime, and to accommodate people with disabilities).
The SPD does reference the need for "a wide choice, type and mix of housing will be provided to
meet the needs of different groups in the community, including families with children, older people and people with disabilities." However this seems only to apply to housing. The needs of disabled or older people and other marginalised groups should be taken into account in all aspects of the masterplan including, but not limited to, the design of green space, transport connectivity etc.

There is no aspiration within the SPD to tackle crime through innovative design.

The aspiration for encouraging developers to incorporate a traffic calmed environment is welcomed. Particularly the reference to using street design, intersecting cross routes to create a natural reduction in speeds, and setting the spine road speed limit to 20mph. The SPD could consider making the entire development a 20mph zone.

COMMENT: E. Connectivity and land use mix.
The incorporation of cycle links, and the access to public transport is welcomed but the s106 requirements (page 75) could be widened to increase the uptake of cycling and walking within, and from the development. For example, any emerging travel plan should include personal travel plans, cycle purchase vouchers etc. In addition the connectivity considerations need to relate to the provision of adequate cycle parking facilities in both commercial buildings and domestic dwellings.

COMMENT: F. Communities that support healthy ageing.
Although the SPD references the need for "a wide choice, type and mix of housing will be provided to meet the needs of different groups in the community, including families with children, older people and people with disabilities." It does not address the needs of older people specifically.

The SPD should make it explicit that the needs of older people, particularly those with dementia should be taken into account as part of the overall design and master planning.

COMMENT: G. House design and space.
The requirement that the development should include a mix of dwelling sizes, types and tenures to meet projected future household needs within Cambridge including integrated housing, and dwellings designed to provide adaptability and flexibility is welcomed.

The SPD could go further and recommend the proportions of dwellings that are built to the Government's 'Approved Document M' standards to ensure that people are able to access and use buildings and their facilities.

COMMENT: H. Access to unhealthy/"Fast Food".
The SPD could reflect the need to address obesogenic environments that encourage people to eat unhealthily and not do enough exercise by encouraging healthy lifestyle choices through innovate design.

COMMENT: I. Health inequality and the built environment.
The SPD needs to address the need for local employment opportunities further.

ARCHAEOLOGY

COMMENT: The site has been subject to a programme of archaeological evaluation, the results of which indicate that significant archaeological remains survive in the area. Any planning
application will require a programme of archaeological excavation, secured by condition, as appropriate methodology for mitigating the development impact.